Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am pleased to have the chance to review this manuscript. This study mainly adopts the novel theory called “motivated consumer innovativeness” to examine significant variables to increase the intention to use the new technology. I think that the analysis is pretty sound but many concerns in Abstract, Introduction, Literature review, Methodology, Conclusion and implications were found. I would like to provide my concerns and questions below:

 

[1]

My first concern is the scope of this study. What is the definition of “seniors” in this study? Even though the scopes and definitions of “seniors” can vary, the ages of 50s may not be considered as seniors. Typically, the group is categorized as being aged 65 or over (https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/ageing/). The authors even mention the social trend of “ultra-aging society” in line 82. More than half of the entire samples (i.e., 68%) are the 50s. Therefore, the authors must clarify the rationale why the age group (the 50s) can be called  “seniors”.

 

[2]

Similarly, the exact description of “robot services at restaurants” is not provided well. As the authors noted in the limitation of this study, this technology could be one of the future services and scenes that do not exist today yet (at least in typical restaurants yet). Therefore, the details how the investigators presented well the features and limitations of robot services to survey respondents. Especially, a real robot serving foods to restaurant customers would be very different from kiosks or any other infotech services such as apps. However, this is one of the most critical points of this research. The chapter of Methodology must provide sufficient information about research design to ensure the appropriateness of the research design.

 

[3]

Literature review does not provide any specific characters of senior restaurant behaviors with technology.

 

[4]

Perceived value has a broad concept and can consist of multiple dimensions like MCI such as utilitarian, hedonic, and so on. This study should define well the concept and roles of perceived value of restaurant customers to explain the link between MCIs and ATT.

 

[5]

Literature review does not deliver sufficient information about the four dimensions of MCI and how four dimensions can be applied to the usage of robot restaurant-services, especially to seniors.

 

[6]

A deeper literature review to support the hypothesis development of the moderating effect by income levels should be provided.

 

[7]

This study utilized an online survey to gather responses from seniors. Readers could challenge the data collection approach to target seniors. I would assume that this study has interests in seniors because the generation would have distant characteristics from the younger generation who get used to new technology; less skillful in using technology. If the authors used an online survey collection service, it might reflect that respondents may have a better skill in using technologies than ordinary seniors. How can the authors justify this question?

 

[8]

I would suggest the authors reorganize the order of Table 3 from fMCI, hMCI, … to ATT, and ITU to improve readability.

 

[9]

I think Conclusion and Implications should be significantly improved to show the merits of this study. The first paragraph sounds like Introduction. The discussion agendas are poor and do not provide any meaningful contribution to the argument related to senior customers and robot services in restaurants. The practical implications are not developed based on the findings of this study. Overall, I am afraid to say that the conclusion is not connected to the results of this study.

 

[10]

Abstract should be revised. The second sentence looks like a part of the research design. The third sentence in Research design, data and methodology should be moved to Results. The second and third sentences in Results should be deleted or be go to Purpose. The sentences in Conclusions in Abstract is not well-established to present unique findings of this study.

 

 

I hope these comments are useful for further steps.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, the manuscrit is interesting and analyzes a current topic. The paper claims to address a number of curious issues (e.g. the use of AI robots in restaurants, the  motivated consumer innovativeness, the technology acceptance model). The manuscript reads well and it is full of relevant information.

The paper is well organised, coherent and clearly written. The authors have properly conceptualized the research and, based on the subject literature review proposed a clear and transparent model of research and four (first hypothesis is divided to four) logical research hypotheses. The choice of research methods does not raise any objections.

However, I would like to make a few observations which I believe may contribute to improving the clarity of the manuscript.

Firstly, while this study is competent, it is hard to see its relevance to the field of sustainability and by extension to this Sustainability  journal. If it were to be submitted anywhere, it should be to a journal focused on an artificial inteligence, robotics or restaurants' management and marketing .The abstract has included some rhetoric on the relationship between robot-serviced restaurants and sustainability, but this isolated statement "...restaurant marketers should consider for senior customers concerning the sustainability of robot service restaurant" is far from sufficient to justify the relationship mentioned above.

Secondly, it seems the paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cites an appropriate range of literature sources. The list of references seems to be representative and up-to-date. Please consider whether was any significant work/literature source ignored? Please, see the papers: Blöcher, K. Rainer A., AI and robotics in the European restaurant sector: Assessing potentials for process innovation in a high-contact service industry (https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00443-2), Jang H.-W., Lee S.-B., Serving Robots: Management and Applications for Restaurant Business Sustainability (https://doi.org/10.3390/su12103998) and similar.

Thirdly, please explain: What kind robot service restaurant did you mean during the research operationalisation process? Restaurant, where staff is substituted by robots and customers come in and consume food on-place (in restaurant)?

Fourthly, there is need to explain much clearly the statement : "Questionnaires from previous studies were considered to fit the context of this study". What research do you mean? Please introduce a brief information about previous research: topic, purpose, segment, place etc. Could you please attach the questionnaire. For the better understanding this study It would be worth knowing research items.

Fifthly, despite the increasing interest, the use of AI and robotics in restaurants is still in its early stage and restaurant managers are seeking guidance to leverage these new technologies for service improving. Could you please briefly present a current state of AI robots usage in the the restaurant sector in Korea.

Sixthly, in Introduction and Conclusions and Implications sections, you wrote a lot about COVID-19 and its impact on the frequency of eating out. Whether COVID-19 is reflected in your study, in your questionnaire?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the efforts in improving this manuscript. I think this updated version presents decently improved. I would suggest the editor accept this paper after revising this manuscript.

 

It seems that the fourth implication (lines 498-513) is not related to the findings of this research.

 

The first two sentences of the conclusion chapter (lines 409-410) could sound weird. I would like the authors to revise these sentences.

 

Before the final submission, please proofread this manuscript and edit it for the journal style.

 

Thank you.

Author Response

Response 1:

I removed the fourth implication, which is not related to the findings of the research. Thank you for your advice.

 Response 2:

Per your advice, I revised the first two sentences of the conclusion chapter. Thank you very much for your recommendation.

Response 3:

I proofread the manuscript and edited it in the journal style.

 

Thank you for your precious advice. It was really helpful to revise the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

Thank you for the revised manuscript and your answers to my comments.

After becoming familiar with the amendments, I can conclude that the paper "A Study on the Perceived Value of Robot Service Restaurants for Senior in Korea" was revised according to the reviewer’ suggestions and now is worth to public in Sustainability.

Author Response

Thank you for your precious advice. It was really helpful to revise the manuscript.